Theory of Fir Superfluorescence

  • R. Saunders
  • R. K. Bullough


We show that the second quantised theories of superfluorescence (SF) from rod-like geometries and the semiclassical approach based on the Bloch-Maxwell equations are compatible with each other. From the semi-classical theory we show that two regimes of SF are expected according as τSF,the superfluorescence time, exceeds or is exceeded by τE,the photon escape time: τSF τ τE defines the regime of oscillatory SF characterised by a first pulse intensity α τSF-2 and a small number of subsequent ringing pulses; τSF ≪ τE defines a regime of steady oscillation characterised by a first pulse intensity α τSF−1 and a steady train of similar ringing pulses. Diffraction or other losses from a rod-like geometry damps the ringing in the oscillatory SF regime and single pulse emission without subsequent ringing is possible in this regime. Pulse widths τW and delays tD depend on damping:ringing intensities depend on this and very significantly on the initial conditions. The two spatially inhomogeneous fields travelling in opposite directions inside a rod damp each other’s ringing. We summarize the difficulties which still prevent the provision of a comprehensive ab initio second quantised theory of SF from extended systems.


Spontaneous Emission Diffraction Loss Semiclassical Approach Steady Oscillation Ringing Pulse 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. (1).
    G. Banfi and R. Bonifacio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 1259 (1974);G. Banfi and R. Bonifacio, Phys. Rev. A 12, 2068 (1975);R. Bonifacio and L.A. Lugiato, Phys. Rev. A 11, 1507 (BL),12, 587 (1975); R.J. Glauber and F. Haake in “Co-operative Phenomena”, H. Haken ed. (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1974)p.71 (these authors discuss a single mode theory both in the semi-classical and quantised forms); R. Bonifacio,ibid, p.97; N. Rehler and J.H. Eberly, Phys. Rev. A 3,1735 (1971) (Refs. 12 and 13 below also come within the general category of the quantised theories).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. (2).
    N. Skribanowitz, I.P. Herman, J.C. MacGillivray and M.S. Feld, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 309 (1973).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. (3).
    J.C MacGillivray and M.S. Feld, Phys. Rev. A 14, 1169(1976).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. (4).
    R. Saunders, R.K. Bullough and S.S. Hassan, J. Phys. A:Math. Gen. 9, 1725 (1976).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. (5).
    M. Gross, C. Fabre, P. Pillet and S. Haroche, Phys. Rev.Lett. 36, 1035 (1976).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. (6).
    H.M. Gibbs “Quantum Beat Super fluorescence in Cs” and Q.H.F. Vrehen “Single Pulse Fluorescence in Cs”. Papers given at the Co-operative Effects Meeting, Redstone Arsenal,Alabama, Dec. 1–2, 1976.Google Scholar
  7. (7).
    S.R. Hartmann “Co-operative Effects in Metal Vapours”.Paper given at the Co-operative Effects Meeting, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, Dec. 1–2, 1976.Google Scholar
  8. (8).
    R.H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 93, 99 (1954)ADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. (9).
    G.S. Agarwal, Phys. Rev. A 2, 2038 (1970); A 3, 1783,A 4, 1791 (1971); “Proceedings of the Third Conference on Coherence and Quantum Optics, Rochester”, L. Mandel and E. Wolf eds. (Plenum, New York, 1973) p.157; R. Bonifacio,ibid, p. 465; R.K. Bullough, ibid, p.121; M. Dillard and H.R. Robl, Phys. Rev. l84, 312 (1969); D.F. Walls and R. Barakat, Phys. Rev. A l, 446 (1970) (Also see Refs. 12and 13 below).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. (10).
    R. Saunders, Ph.D. Thesis, U. of Manchester, 1973.Google Scholar
  11. (11).
    F.T. Arecchi and E. Courtens, Phys. Rev. A 2, 1730 (1970).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. (12).
    R. Bonifacio, P. Schwendimann and F. Haake, Phys. Rev. A4 302, 854 (1971).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. (13).
    F. Haake and R. Glauber, Phys. Rev. A 5, l457 (1972).R.J. Glauber and F. Haake, Phys. Rev. A 13, 357 (1976).(See also R.J. Glauber and F. Haake, Ref. 1.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. (14).
    R.H. Dicke in “Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Quantum Optics, Paris, 1963” (Columbia U.P.,New York, 1964) p.35.Google Scholar
  15. (15).
    Meeting on “Co-operative Effects” (Co-operative Effects Meeting6,7), Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, Dec. 1–2, 1976.The proceedings of this meeting are reported in this volume.Google Scholar
  16. (16).
    R. Saunders, R.K. Bullough and F. Ahmad, J. Phys. A: Math.Gen. 8, 579 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. (17).
    R. Friedberg and S.R. Hartmann, Optics Comm. 10, 298 (1974); Phys. Rev. A 10, 1728 (1974).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. (18).
    The ordering of the field operators is discussed in Ref. 10, Chapter 6 (§6.2), particularly that of the +ve and −ve frequency parts of the inter-atomic fields (The conclusion is that the inter-atomic fields need not be ordered for a Hamiltonian like (3.1)).Google Scholar
  19. (19).
    The tensor propagator $\rm{\mathop F\limits^\leftrightarrow}$ is a Green’s function for ∇∇. — ∇2 + c−22/∂t2 It has longitudinal part ∇∇r−1 and transverse part $\rm{\mathop F\limits^\leftrightarrow}- \nabla\nabla_r^{-1}$. We use * for adjoint in (3.9).Google Scholar
  20. (20).
    R. Saunders and R.K. Bullough, J. Phys. A: Matn. Nucl. Gen.6, 1360 (1973).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. (21).
    J.C. Eilbeck, J.D. Gibbon, P.J. Caudrey and R.K. Bullough,J. Phys A: Math. Nucl. Gen. 6, 1337 (1973).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. (22).
    P+2 + P−2 + Q+2 + Q−2 + N2 is almost a constant of the motion in (4.4).Google Scholar
  23. (23).
    When L → ∞ the dielectric is the half space z ≻ 0: we need left going not right going waves for emission across z = O. This analytical problem is not solved. Mostly analytical solutions of the sine-Gordon equation are for the real line —∞ ≺ z ≺ +∞. For example, the inverse scattering method (e.g. M. Ablowitz, D.J. Kaup, A.C. Newell and H. Segur, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1262 (1973); Studies inAppl. Math. 53, 249 (1974) solves the initial value problemfor the sine-Gordon equation in the form (5.8) which isó = f(ζ) at t = O, with boundary conditions ó → 0(mod 2π), óζ etc. → 0 as ¦ζ¦ → ∞. Solutions of (5.3)and (5.4) for an amplifier (P = − sin ó, N = − cos ó anda = π (mod 2π), óz → 0, etc. at t = O with ót ≢ 0 atz = 0) are given by Lamb (G.L. Lamb, Phys. Rev. A 12, 2052(1975)) who also justifies a π−pulse similarity solution of(5.8) like that of (5.9) below.24 Lamb previously considered this solution (G.L. Lamb, Rev. Mod. Phys. 43, 99 (l97l)) and (and see below also) infers from the theorem that no solution a of (5.8) remains within 0 ≺ ó ≺ π that all solutions ring. (This is the point we make here below (5.9)). Solutions of the sine-Gordon equation are in principal available for periodic boundary conditions (cf.the article by S.P. Novikov in “Solitons” R.K. Bullough and P.J. Caudrey, eds. (Springer Verlag, Heidelberg. To be published, 1977).Google Scholar
  24. (24).
    The boundary condition $\phi=\ \ -\sqrt2\delta,\ \ \phi\ =\ 0$, at Y = 0 on equation (5.9) means $\phi=\ \ -\sqrt2\delta,\ \ \phi\ =\ 0$ for all η ≻ 0 atζ = 0. The solution is a half-space solution which shows some of the behaviour required of it for 1 ≻ ζ ≻ 0.MacGillivray and Feld3 use this solution differently to reach their delay formula tD ≈ ¼tR¦ ln óo/2π¦2. (óo is atipping angle — see Sec. VII.) Note that (5.8) is inlaboratory co-ordinates, i.e. η = t τSF−1 is not aretarded time.Google Scholar
  25. (25).
    S.L. McCall, Ph.D. Thesis, U. of California at Berkeley,1969.Google Scholar
  26. (26).
    Applied to (2.1) the approximation introduces a second óηterm.Google Scholar
  27. (27).
    The point is this: for ν ≲ 7.0 the regime of steady oscil-lation is unchanged. As the n dependence of the intensity in this regime changes to the n2 dependence of the oscilla-tory SF regime ν becomes effective in damping the pulses.If ν is large enough there must be a smooth transition from n dependence and strong ringing through to n2 depen-dence and no ringing.Google Scholar
  28. (28).
    At the time of going to press we have not tracked down apossibly discrepant factor of two (Compare e.g. (2.4)against (7.3)). There is no general agreement on thedefinition of τr in the expressions for tD : our defini-tion assumes non-degenerate two-level transitions withfixed polarisation orthogonal to z, the axis of the rod:this must be averaged for a real gas. Note that the dis-cussion throughout uses our definitions of τr and τSF.BL1 use 2τr for our τr and e.g. the regimes describedin Sec. II are changed accordingly.Google Scholar
  29. (29).
    Compare Fig. 2c in Ref. 2: τW ∼ 120 n sec there however.Google Scholar
  30. (30).
    R. Saunders and R.K. Bullough, J. Phys. A: Math. Nucl. Gen.6, 1348 (1973).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. (31).
    We are grateful to Hyatt Gibbs and Quirin Vrehen for thisparticular data on Cs: agreement is with the empirical tD ∼ 2τr ½ ln No obtained from HF data; and we have yet to calculate the delay from this data for Cs.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Saunders
    • 1
  • R. K. Bullough
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversity of Manchester Institute of Science and TechnologyManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations